VLVL Prairie and Isaiah

[Paul Nightingale]

>From jbor:
> 
> > Isaiah, "a huge hand on her
> > shoulder", says: "But I promised your dad--" (104). This is indeed "a
> > paternalistic claim", as Michael suggests; and Isaiah's gesture
> indicates
> > that he intends it to confine her.
> 
> I don't agree with this judgement at all. I think Isaiah's gesture is
> affectionate and protective, and what's very clear in the exchange is that
> Isaiah understands the implication of Prairie's question, and that he
> acknowledges and respects Prairie's freedom and independence.
> 
For whatever reason Isaiah instinctively sees his role as protective, which
in context is paternalistic; you might infer that he wants to impress Zoyd
by demonstrating that he's trustworthy, whatever. Invoking parental
authority (Isaiah sees himself as a substitute for Zoyd here) is
paternalistic.

What's in the text is that he's thrown by her decision to leave: "He
frowned, a huge hand on her shoulder, trying to solve a puzzle." The
paternalistic gesture is part of his attempt to make sense of something he
doesn't understand. And then: "Isaiah was looking over at DL, eyebrows going
like wings trying to pick up some lift." To which Prairie replies: "She's
cool, rilly."

So what we have is Isaiah dealing with an unexpected decision on Prairie's
part. He begins to try and talk her out of it; instinctively he's suspicious
of DL. As some kind of rival? Perhaps. Her unexpected, and unexplained,
appearance would allow him to read the situation in that way: her
appearance, and his judgement, allow him to make sense of something he still
doesn't understand. This conclusion is justified by Prairie's response, an
attempt to conciliate.

Help me out here. Where exactly does the text make it clear that "Isaiah
understands the implication of Prairie's question, and ... acknowledges and
respects Prairie's freedom and independence?"

> It seems odd that so much interpretative loading would be assumed here
> while
> the narrator's statement that "DL had to look down at her feet like an
> amateur ballet dancer" is rudely rejected as "ambiguous".

Why "rudely rejected"? It's the ambiguity (based on Pynchon's deliberate
choice of "temporised") that's being rejected by readers who go for a
simplistic reading, listing quotations taken out of context to make them fit
a preordained, judgemental conclusion.